the self replicating watch argument

[Kylie]

I think you have misunderstood me. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It is a fact that all life as we know it today evolved from single celled organisms. It is the theory of evolution, the "what is the driving force behind evolution" theory, that all of this happened because of Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutations and Gene Flow, which is insufficient to explain life as it is.

Very well. How do you justify THIS claim that natural selection etc are insufficient?

 

[Kylie]

For some reason I can't edit my post, so let me elaborate in this second post. Again, that life evolved is a fact. The question is what is the driving force behind it. There are, in my mind different theories.

Okay.

1. That evolution is driven only by Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutations and Gene Flow. This is the present TOE. I think it is insufficient to explain life as we know it today.

I'll ask again here for simplicity's sake. Why do you think these are insufficient?

2. That evolution is driven solely by God. This is ridiculous. We know that Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutations and Gene Flow play a part.

Agreed.

3. That there are as yet, other factor(s) in addition to Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutations and Gene Flow. The other factor(s) could be something natural, or could be God. If it is God, there are several ways it could work:

Let's see...

• God could be intervening in a direct supernatural way

This would seem little better than your second idea above. If God can play a partial role, why wouldn't he just do the whole thing?

• God created the laws of nature, meaning that the "something natural," even Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutations and Gene Flow, can be credited to God.

This would seem to make no difference. If you claim that natural selection and all that is insufficient to explain evolution, why would saying that they were made by God suddenly make them sufficient?

• God could have, when creating the universe, created special laws so weak they are as yet undetectable by us, to create a bias in the universe towards the creation of life and the evolution of sentient beings. I suppose this would also be classified as "natural," although it is certainly more direct than the former possibility.

How could these laws be so weak that they can have no influence on our sensors and instruments, but strong enough that they can have an effect on evolving life forms? Even if such laws DID exist, surely natural selection and all that would have a much greater influence.

 

[stevevw]

I always love seeing So's Law validated.

What I am saying is that beings with much simpler systems react to stimuli. There's no requirement for a eyes, optic nerves or a brain. Thus acting as if human vision is the only way to perceive and respond to stimuli is incorrect.

Also:
1. Nothing is ever proven in science so avoid using "prove" in a scientific context.
2. The evolution of life from more simple to more complex forms is supported by both the fossil record and genetic analysis.
3. We can know, because of that evidence, that response to stimuli evolved in very early and very simple beings and life has merely evolved more sophisticated (from our perspective) ways of perceiving and responding to it.

What I am saying is how do you know that neo darwinism is the mechanism that evolved life from simple to complex. You are assuming this is the cause.

 

[stevevw]

When I was 26 and working on my Bachelor degree, I was a creationist. I knew only a modest amount about evolution. In particular, I was ignorant of the vast wealth of transitional forms. I thought there really weren't any. I listened a lot to what Drs. Gish and Morris had to say, even though I had my doubts about them -- it made me nervous that only angry Bible bashers debated them while credible scientists had nothing to do with them (aka didn't take them seriously enough to debate).

I enrolled in an Anthropology course, and we began learning about the fossils that were supposed to be linked to human ancestry. In my mind, they could clearly be grouped into either human or ape. Even the Australopithecines could be considered walking apes if you stretched things a bit. Until we came to Homo Habilis. I was absolutely unnerved. Ape? Human? I couldn't decide. Even scientists had debated the issue before assigning genus homo due to his better tool making skill. And then it struck me that if scientists had debated the issue, that is what you would expect for a transitional form.

That morning when I left for school, I had been a creationist. When I got home, I believed in evolution. The dominoes fell for a long time. When they finished falling, God had survived. Evolution was not an atheist belief.

So look at fossils like Homo Habilis. Look at whale evolution. Even creationists admit to "microevolution." The ONLY difference between micro and macro evolution is TIME. If you have an ancient earth, it is only a matter of time until you have enough small differences evolved that you have a new species. So you might want to look into the evidences for an old earth.

I also support evolution but I do not assume things. I often say I do not know because though something may seem that it occurred a certain way we do not know and there may not be enough conclusive evidence to be certain. There can be evidence that shows that it could not have happened through neo-darwinian evolution or evidence that supports other methods for how something happened that has been mistakenly assumed to have happened by evolution.

Whilst you say the fossil record supports evolution I think that is an assumption considering that there may be other mechanisms that produce results that may seem like Neo Darwinism was the cause. There are also anomelies in the fossil records where the sudden appearence of well defined life appears and then disappears which supports a more directed process where life can switch on pre-existing genetic info and change suddenly in an evolutionary sense rather than trying to create this through a blind and random process..

 

[stevevw]

Given that we have examples of numerous different kinds of eyes that show a progression from very simple eyes to the complex eyes of Humans, yes, these things are very strong evidence for evolution through natural selection from simple to complex life.

It is easy to cite 3 or 4 steps and give an oversimplification of things in a process that may involve 100s of far more complex steps where some need to be in place at the same time and therefore require multiple mutations. I find it hard to believe random mutations and blind selection could produce the goods at the right time and in the right place. That relies of massive chance and assumption. It is also easy to assume that neo-darwism was the cause of this complexity when it makes more sense that the genetic material for all eyes was already around and was used according to the needs of each creature.

We could also make a case for compund eyes being very complex and perhaps more complex than some later evolved eyes which may then break the progression of simple to complex and require an explanation of how such complexity could occur so early when it was suppose to be only simple versions of eyes occuring. It only has to take one example to bring evolution into question when people rely on assumptions.

 

[Kylie]

It is easy to cite 3 or 4 steps and give an oversimplification of things in a process that may involve 100s of far more complex steps where some need to be in place at the same time and therefore require multiple random mutations that are blindly selected at the right time and place. That relies of massive chance and assumption. It is also easy to assume that neo-darwismwas the cause of this when it makes more sense that the genetic material for all eyes was already around and was used according to the needs of each creature.

And of course, no evolutionary biologist has ever thought of this.

Or maybe they have, and they are aware of aspects of biology that you are not, and they understand how the process works in detail that you could not understand at all.

 

[stevevw]

No. I'm not.



No, this is a big assumption.
View attachment 218676


Trite platitudes in rhyme are still trite platitudes

Its an even bigger assumption to assume I assume that what you think I assume is what I assume. LOL

You are committing the classic fallacy of making out that there are only two positions to take magic or Neo-Darwinism.

[/quote] No. Selection actually helps remove harmful mutations while keeping the beneficial ones in most cases. Oh, and most systems in living beings are not fine tuned. They're jury rigged.[/QUOTE] When it comes to genetic complexity it is finely tuned. The genetic networks need to remain the same to continue to function properly. That is why there are mechanisms to correct mistakes (mutations) and restore things back to how they were. The problem with neo darwinism is that it is not just about selection but also random mutations which can imtroduce harmful mutations that can threaten the finely tuned networks. So to create something even better than what is already good any new change has to go through a process of of damaging that which is good to make better which doesnt make sense. Even if it is selected out it will do harm first plus not all deleterous mutations are weeded out as they are too small. But the accumulated effect will damage things in the end. Even if a very rare beneficial mutation does slip through it will end up contributing to a fitness loss because mutations do not work in isolation. They will be affected by other mutations and when combined the end result is always a fitness cost not an improvement.


Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009
Excerpt: The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability,,
Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. - PubMed - NCBI

Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population
We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect. Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness,
Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population

What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

 

[stevevw]

And of course, no evolutionary biologist has ever thought of this.

Or maybe they have, and they are aware of aspects of biology that you are not, and they understand how the process works in detail that you could not understand at all.

I tend to look towards the experts who know about how the eye works for example and not someone who suppoerts evolution and assumes it must be able to do all things because that is what they have been told from the simplistic explanations given. When you see what is actually involved in the eye you begin to see that there are many more steps to how an eye may be made and many of these need to be present at the same time.

That means a random mutation needs to pop up several correct mutations at the same time and blind selection needs to know they are needed ahead of time and select them . If only one part is presented then the whole thing will not work. For example the Iris controls the shape and size of the pupil. There are two seperate functions that cause the iris to expand or contract the pupil. Both are needed for the eye to function properly yet both are seperate mechanisms that are connected in seperate ways and also connected seperately to the brain so that it will be singled when to contract the pupli in high light situtaions and when to dilate the pupil in darker situations.

So this would require multiple mutations to evolve both and both would have to be evolved at the same time. As some say if evolution relied on one mutation at a time to evolve big steps then this may be concievable. But that is not the case.

 

[xianghua]

beneficial mutations.

it will not work since there is no advantage in a single part out of the two.

 

[xianghua]

It is a fact that all life as we know it today evolved from single celled organisms

can you give a fact that support this claim?

Even creationists admit to "microevolution." The ONLY difference between micro and macro evolution is TIME.

i dont think so. think about this analogy: lets say that we had a self replicating molecule. do you think that such a molecule can evolve into a walking robot in millions of years? if so say how.

 

[AV1611VET]

do you think that such a molecule can evolve into a walking robot in millions of years? if so say how.

They can be convinced of it with just a chalkboard and piece of chalk.

Evolution is a game of connect-the-dots.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

can you give a fact that support this claim?



i dont think so. think about this analogy: lets say that we had a self replicating molecule. do you think that such a molecule can evolve into a walking robot in millions of years? if so say how.

That's a really poor analogy. A self replicating molecule could never evolve into a human manufactured item. After all this time on the forum, with hundreds of explanatory posts how is it possible that you still don't understand the basics?

 

[doubtingmerle]

A self replicating molecule could never evolve into a human manufactured item. After all this time on the forum, with hundreds of explanatory posts how is it possible that you still don't understand the basics?

We all keep hoping that some day the light bulb will come on and we will hear, "Eureka! Horses are alive and cars aren't"

 

[xianghua]

That's a really poor analogy. A self replicating molecule could never evolve into a human manufactured item. After all this time on the forum, with hundreds of explanatory posts how is it possible that you still don't understand the basics?

actually its incorrect. according to evolution a spinning motor evolved from a self replicating molecule, so if a spinning motor can evolve from a molecule why not a walking robot?:

 

[USincognito]

Its an even bigger assumption to assume I assume that what you think I assume is what I assume. LOL

You are committing the classic fallacy of making out that there are only two positions to take magic or Neo-Darwinism.

No. Selection actually helps remove harmful mutations while keeping the beneficial ones in most cases. Oh, and most systems in living beings are not fine tuned. They're jury rigged.[/QUOTE] When it comes to genetic complexity it is finely tuned. The genetic networks need to remain the same to continue to function properly. That is why there are mechanisms to correct mistakes (mutations) and restore things back to how they were. The problem with neo darwinism is that it is not just about selection but also random mutations which can imtroduce harmful mutations that can threaten the finely tuned networks. So to create something even better than what is already good any new change has to go through a process of of damaging that which is good to make better which doesnt make sense. Even if it is selected out it will do harm first plus not all deleterous mutations are weeded out as they are too small. But the accumulated effect will damage things in the end. Even if a very rare beneficial mutation does slip through it will end up contributing to a fitness loss because mutations do not work in isolation. They will be affected by other mutations and when combined the end result is always a fitness cost not an improvement.


Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009
Excerpt: The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability,,
Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. - PubMed - NCBI

Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population
We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect. Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness,
Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population

What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full[/QUOTE]
Pleas fix the quote tags in your post.

 

[doubtingmerle]

according to evolution a spinning motor evolved from a self replicating molecule, so if a spinning motor can evolve from a molecule why not a walking robot?:

That would require that the robot grow from a fertilized egg. Non-living, mechanical robots can not grow to adulthood from a fertilized egg.

 

[xianghua]

That would require that the robot grow from a fertilized egg. Non-living, mechanical robots can not grow to adulthood from a fertilized egg.

but i do talk here about an organic robot. so it can do those things theoretically. so if we will find something like this, but we found out that its made from organic components and has a self replicating system, will you agree that such an object is the result of a natural procoess?:

https://jgrcommunications.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Nao.jpg

https://jgrcommunications.com/the-storytelling-robot-eye-contact/

 

[doubtingmerle]

but i do talk here about an organic robot. so it can do those things theoretically. so if we will find something like this, but we found out that its made from organic components and has a self replicating system, will you agree that such an object is the result of a natural procoess?:

https://jgrcommunications.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Nao.jpg

https://jgrcommunications.com/the-storytelling-robot-eye-contact/

As I have said ad infinitum, it depends on how it replicates. If it grows from a fertilized egg to make a multicellular creature that contributes to more fertilized eggs with DNA, then it is an animal and most likely can evolve. If it replicates by mechanically building all components and putting them together, then it is a machine that cannot evolve biologically.

I think you will agree that I wasted my time answering your question. I think you will agree that you will simply ignore my answer and ask the same question again, yes?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

actually its incorrect. according to evolution a spinning motor evolved from a self replicating molecule, so if a spinning motor can evolve from a molecule why not a walking robot?:

No. Just no.

 

[Meowzltov]

can you give a fact that support this claim?

Did you not learn the basic facts regarding evolution in school? Or were you one of those kids that were given information but let it go in one ear and out the other? Try examining some of the many lines of transitional forms, such as that of whales. You start off with a quirky ear formation that today exists only in cestaceans. You can find it in past four legged land animals, and over time you can follow their slow evolution into whales and dolphins via the fossil record.